I'm free on weekends, and am pretty good and improvised quasi-military gear and weaponry. I'll have you slinging miniature molitovs in no time*
*warning: your neighbors may posibbibly throw them back, or at least be unhappy with you afterwards. Also the erection of a 7' privacy fence can be expected. Meagloth is not responsible for any malfunctions or misuse resulting In Property damage, injury, or death. Do not throw molitovs inside an enclosed space, and keep away from eyes and ears. Do not eat. Product is a poisonous, flammable, explosive, corrosive choking hazard. Keep away from small children, pets, idiots, and individuals suffering from any kind of mental illness or instability.
I'm not going to get into politics on a message board. Lets just say I'm a hardline Conservative who's political idols are Ronald Reagan, Theodore Roosevelt and John Wayne.
@CoM_Solaufein, I originally had this thought for sometime before I started this one but it seems pretty much everyone here can handle the topic with dignity and respect. Hell, they'll argue you EVERY inch of the way but seem to understand everyone has their own ideals and they are unlikely to just spin on a dime because someone disagrees with them.
In some less grim and dark news, after the Ukraine and Islamic State that has been dominating the headlines for us lately. We're apparently back on track to fixing our relationship with China, even if Wang Yi did take a liiiiittle jab at the Abbott government saying "China may not be Australia's closest friend at the moment".
This was after Tony called Japan "Our closest friend in Asia." Which, as was pointed out, is a diplomatic no no.
There is an official State visit by Xi Jinping in November to discuss free trade, mutual defence and the war in the Middle East which should prove to be a very interesting visit. Tony might be a total ass but at least he's working on the relationship with China.
Clive Palmer really didn't help matters there, calling the Chinese government "Mongrels who murder their own people" on the TV show Q&A and later saying the armed forces needed to be enlarged to fight a communist invasion in the future.
In a related topic, the Chinese are apparently growing concerned at the number of Chinese fighters joining the Islamic State. China apparently has a Muslim minority, the Uighurs who have begun fighting in the Middle East. Along with a great many other nationalities, including Australians.
Australia has a vested interest in being on good terms with the Chinese, given how much we import and export to the Chinese.
If there is another big bankers war then we can all say good bye to the legacy of this great planet. I see this earth as the paradise and the only one paradise in this whole damn galaxy and our puppets and muppets aka politicians do everything to let the bankers get their new big war so it seems. Russia is a nuclear power and a BIG one. She can fuc* up the whole world still!
But people have forgotten the cuba crises and "able archer"... that stuff should rang an alarm. Whatever they say on TV whatever. It´s a bankers war!
And seriously. No one in the bankers business or the other establishments care about me, you and you. They do whatever they can do fill their greedy pockets and expand their shitt* zion. The good bunkers are not for us. These people will burn the world if it means that they made their point!
Australia has a vested interest in being on good terms with the Chinese, given how much we import and export to the Chinese.
This is what I mean by self-interest trumping ideology. I'm sorry CaloNord, but I don't understand why someone would prefer a good relationship with a government that is essentially a dictatorship (controls the state, military AND media) that was built on the back of the greatest slaughter in human history over what is essentially a stable democracy in Japan (though I agree that they are possibly the world's worst trading partner as they are isolationist to the point of stupidity)
I mean, I'm sure Heindrich would not agree, but people are upset with Putin trying to keep control over Ukraine... when the Chinese government has been pointing missiles in Taiwan's direction for decades now. The PRC's claim over Taiwan is almost analogous to Russia's claim over Ukraine.
I was against the war in Iraq, and am opposed to intervening in Ukraine. I too think the president is a complete hypocrite (that was the case from the moment he took office).
but I do find it hard to comprehend that someone who says things like
Corvino, islamic people hate us from the deepness of their hearts. There is no way of talking out with these people - even those we call "moderate" are not. They do not share our same values, and before people are going to understand that , the better it will be. If you do not agree, just tell me one islamic nation that has christian churches. There is not.
And we do not have to be superior to them, because you can't fight brutality with peace. Gandhi won because he was against great britain. Wonder what would have happened if India was a Iraqi's colony when there was Saddam. Meh
is somehow all up in arms about the wars in the Middle East. Seriously, you seem to be taking one position that directly contradicts the other. Is it bad when the American government does it, but okay if yours does?I'd also like to point out that the Italian government was quickest to jump on board with the US during the invasion of Iraq after the British and the Australians... but I don't see you saying "Italians" (see how dumb it is to generalize about a people through mistakes their government made?) "do not understand a fuck but money". Are only Americans greedy?
I don't mean to sound defensive about my country, and considering I disagree with about 80% of the major foreign policy decisions made over here in the past decade, I think a lot of criticism is warranted. I also understand when a nation is the major actor in global affairs they need to be held to a higher standard than any other, for the sake of everyone. The hypocrisy in US foreign policy is pretty apparent, and you'd have to be blind to deny it. But lets be fair, as much as I disliked Bush and Obama neither of them were Putin, and comparing them to him in this conflict is wrong. I'm normally not one to defend Obama, but he was certainly not the one who began the conflict in Ukraine, and in fact the EU implemented stricter sanctions on Russia than even the US did.
I agree completely with Boo, governments are motivated purely by self-interest and monetary gain. To be honest, we are great friends with Japan, and good trading partners. The relationship with China however, it's worth a whole hell of a lot more. And yes, the Chinese government is a dictatorship but that doesn't change the fact that, like it or not, they are a world power and a major part of our economy.
As far as the Ukraine goes, I think I see where Putin is coming from, the Russia's sacrificed SO much blood and treasure to hold/retake that patch of dirt, to just GIVE IT AWAY might be something of a sore point for an old KGB Colonel. Especially after watching the U.S. and it's allies intervene wherever they see fit for the past decade, the second he tries to do it, all hell breaks loose . . .
I feel the relationship between Islam and the west would require a major in depth discussion to understand the WHY of it. It goes back much further then recent history and there are very good reasons for it. A lot of Muslim children grow up with tales of western barbarity from the middle ages, it's no wonder they have an innate dislike of westerners. . .
I was trying to remember the name of a documentary series I watched ages ago that covered the relationship between the west and Islam over the centuries, was an absolutely fascinating piece. Written and produced largely by Muslims so it was great to get some exposure to the point of view of the 'other side' for once.
I feel the relationship between Islam and the west would require a major in depth discussion to understand the WHY of it. It goes back much further then recent history and there are very good reasons for it. A lot of Muslim children grow up with tales of western barbarity from the middle ages, it's no wonder they have an innate dislike of westerners. . .
I'm sure occupying the Middle East and then partitioning it willy nilly with no regard to history, ethnicity or culture (while still keeping military bases there wherever they felt like) had a little something to do with it!
But its obviously not entirely the West's fault, as some would have us believe. This may not be politically correct, but by my personal standards the culture in the region is very backward. As the region (inevitably) modernizes, relations will improve. I just wish the US and the rest of the West would be a little more hesitant to intervene until then, because it has caused more problems than it has solved.
Oh yea, it's a bloody complicated subject but I can see why they aren't massively fond of us. Our ancestors did one hell of job screwing up relations. :P
But yes, I agree it's not entirely our fault, by no means. But we can't just go strolling around anywhere we like stuffing democracy down other peoples throats. I know a few people that had been to Afghanistan, served there, met the locals and said a great many of them have no idea what democracy is even about. It's an alien concept to them and a great many of them don't give a crap. They are more worried about how to grow enough food or get enough work to feed their families. Who is in charge in some far away city is a moot point to them.
Honestly, how long do we expect these little fledgling democracies to hold up once western firepower has gone home?
@booinyoureyes and @CaloNord , I have not forgotten about my intent to explain the Chinese position on Taiwan and Tibet. I have been pretty busy so my forum participation has been mostly reading rather than writing in the past few weeks. Seeing as this topic has re-emerged, I will write something on the issues soon-ish. But first, I'd like to lay the groundwork by discussing a central conflict in political philosophy at the heart of issues like Ukraine, Scotland, Taiwan and Tibet. I am talking about the conflict between Utilitarianism and Liberty.
Utilitarianism essentially argues that the primary objective of society should be to maximise the net benefit for the members of that society, which does not sound unreasonable or morally wrong... Yet it is inherently contradictory to the ideals of liberty and self-determination. Utilitarianism cannot work without a degree of coercion, redistribution of wealth and resources, which naturally infringes upon the liberty of individuals.
Yet unless you are an ardent anarchist, most people would accept that the emergence of society and the development of nation states has been a net-benefit to humanity. Civilisations arose out of utilitarian principles because it made rational sense for the majority of people to participate in society rather than live outside of it. For example, most ancient civilisations arose in river valleys where the rivers provide agricultural abundance to support dense populations, but was also prone to cause catastrophic flooding. Thus it made sense for tribes, villages and towns to band together for water management projects, distribution of resources etc...
These principles apply in the 21st Century too. In 2008 Sichuan Province was hit by a devastating earthquake that killed 80,000 people and left 5-10 million homeless. For all of the Chinese government's faults, and questions about the quality of public buildings like schools etc, the response to the disaster was impressive and praised both within China and internationally. If Sichuan Province (population 80 million) was an independent country, could it have responded to such a disaster as efficiently, decisively and effectively as the massive relief effort conducted by a central government organising the efforts of a country of 1,300 million? What if the worst affected region was a small independent country in its own right (5-10 million is bigger than all of Scotland). How can the country even hope to recover when it is essentially destroyed outright by the disaster?
"But local countries and the international community should come to the aid of their fellow human beings!". Yes... and they do to an extent, but sadly that is not how the world works. Nations only REALLY make an effort for their own citizens. If you want a modern example of how a small country can really struggle with the effects of a catastrophic event, you only need to look to the Haiti earthquake of 2010, and compare the recovery of Sichuan and the continued suffering in Haiti, despite the very visible presence of charities operating in Haiti.
Essentially, because Haiti is not part of a large, rich and powerful country, relief efforts for Haiti has had to rely upon the generosity and choice of others. Because Sichuan is a part of China, and Wenchuan (the region worst hit by the earthquake) is a part of Sichuan, then the citizens of the rest of China are obligated/coerced by their tacit participation in Chinese society, to respond to a disaster thousands of miles away, even if it infringes upon their liberty to not contribute to a relief effort to help people they do not know and will never meet.
This central conflict between liberty and utility feels extremely relevant in the UK at present because it is at the heart of the debate on the Scottish Referendum. The West regularly espouses self-determination as an in-alienable human right and a good thing to aspire for (some take it more seriously than others). That maybe true to an extent, but if everybody exercised their right to self-determine, then countries and societies will break down into small local units, petty tribalism and the family unit. Why should Scots share their oil and gas with the English? Why should the English bother to defend Scotland to help them keep their oil and gas? Why should Londoners pay a disproportionate amount of tax to subsidise poorer regions of the UK? Why should the North of England accept laws written by a Conservative government they did not vote for? If localism, selfish petty tribalism and short-sightedness takes over, then society ceases to function as a whole.
Well, I would certainly argue that a nation as big as 80 million people actually would mount a good response to an earthquake. You cannot compare Sichuan to Haiti that has less than an 8th of its population and was already stricken with numerous problems long before the earthquake.
Also, I don't think response to natural disaster is a valid reason for disregarding the principles of self-determination, and I especially don't see its application to the Taiwan/Haiti comparison. I mean, if the United States government decided to mount a huge organized aid effort for Haiti following the earthquake, that would not justify the US annexing it! I'm sure Haitians would value their independence enough to not seek to sacrifice their sovereignty the moment they have a natural disaster.
Independent nations will always have a cause for cooperation, because it is usually mutually beneficial. The US and Canada are both independent, and the two wealthiest nations in Western Hemisphere, yet also enjoy next to perfect relations (as good as any other two nations in the world). The EU, for all its faults and recent unpopularity, is a sign that mutually beneficial cooperation can exist without sacrificing sovereignty and the right to self-determination.
When it comes to your question, that if there was no forced unity
Why should Scots share their oil and gas with the English? Why should the English bother to defend Scotland to help them keep their oil and gas?
the answers are fairly simple. You only need to examine examples like the US intervening on behalf of Kuwait in the early 90s to see why England would defend Scottish oil. You need only look at how >80% of Mexico's oil exports are to the United States to see why the Scotland would trade with England.
I think another thing that you fail to consider is how forced unification does not always quell what you call "petty tribalism". You need only to look at the historical divide between India and Pakistan, Korea in the 1950s or any nation in the Middle East in the post-colonial era to see this. A Kurd in Iraq or a Kosovar Albanian in the 90s might not agree about the utilitarian benefits of forced integration and instead see only mob rule. Forced nationhood does not end tribalism.
I personally don't see the problem with the "small units" that you fear nations would break down to. For one, I don't think it is nearly as extreme as you make it out to be. I mean, if Sichuan was independent it would be the size of Germany. I have a great deal of faith that Germany can care for itself. I see more independence as a way for varying cultures and philosophies to thrive separately, without clashing. A Serb can go to church, a Bosnian can go to mosque. Poles can be Catholic, Estonians Protestant. The Germans can drink beer, the French can drink wine. The US is actually based off of such a system, and states are given a great deal of autonomy with few issues in the past 150 years.
Finally, in regards to China and Taiwan, I think there is a big difference you fail to recognize. The majority of people in the Sichuan Province are most likely quite happy to be a part of the PRC. In Taiwan, however, most would prefer independence over unification (though a majority, if given the option, would actually like the status quo). The "greatest benefit for the greatest number" has to understand that "good" is subjective, and what some may find beneficial, others may not. It is not an easy thing to decide for another what is "good" for them, since their idea of what is beneficial might not be the same as yours. I'd sum it up by saying that it is extremely difficult for someone to define something, on a global scale, as being "for the greater good". This is why I get a little nervous when people justify very broad, sweeping actions or policies with this kind of reasoning... what if they are wrong?
What I'm against is the fact that Usa is concerned about an European matter - what is the interest of Ukraine splitting up, for the Usa? None.
Ukraine is an ally whose independence is under threat. It is not hard to see why a nation would support an important ally with which they have good relations, particularly when the US has a large number of citizens who either came from Ukraine or had parents born there.
You got to tell me, why the Nato, that is supposed to be a defensive pact, is doing offensive trainings to help a nation that isn't part of the Nato...
The entire reason for the conflict was because many in Ukraine were demanding closer relations with Europe and NATO.
As I said, I am mostly against a military action over this issue, but I also disagree with the portrayal of NATO as the aggressors, since that is simply not the case
May I ask why you don't like Putin? Nationalism? According to me he is a ok leader, that shines and is great because the other are mediocre in comparison (including Obama).
I don't like Putin because of his aggression toward post-Soviet states and also because of the regression of Russia back toward totalitarian rule following his coming to power.
I also find it odd that you, while being critical (rightfully so) of the past two US presidents for involving themselves in the Middle East and Ukraine, seem to ignore the fact that Putin has been equally active. He has a bigger footprint on the Ukrainian conflict than Obama can ever hope to have, and you seem to forget his involvement in backing Assad in Syria.
I don't like Putin because of his aggression toward post-Soviet states and also because of the regression of Russia back toward totalitarian rule following his coming to power.
I also find it odd that you, while being critical (rightfully so) of the past two US presidents for involving themselves in the Middle East and Ukraine, seem to ignore the fact that Putin has been equally active. He has a bigger footprint on the Ukrainian conflict than Obama can ever hope to have, and you seem to forget his involvement in backing Assad in Syria.
I didn't quite mean to participate, but felt obliged to respond to this in particular.
Georgia wants to join NATO - Georgia ends up with disputed borders - goodbye NATO. Ukraine wants to join NATO - Ukraine ends up with disputed borders - goodbye NATO.
What you call aggression towards post-Soviet states is a mere counter operation in grand strategy to prevent NATO's expansion to the east, something it has been steadily doing since the decay of USSR. After having witnessed NATO's actions in the Middle East over the last two decades - and especially the outcome of those operations, - I can hardly blame Putin for not wanting NATO bases circling the borders of his resource-rich country.
Yeah, how dare Russia's neighbors determine their own alliances. Who do they think they are, sovereign nations or something?
Perhaps there is a reason they want to join NATO... its not like Putin has bases in Georgia or Ukraine (or the Middle East)
In all seriousness, saying "oh it is a counter measure" is what literally every side of every conflict does. Its like when you were a kid and you fight with your brother and you both say "he started it".
The facts are simple: the minute any former Soviet state exercises its independence against the will of Moscow, Putin puts his fist down and proceeds with military action. Certainly not the sign of a great leader in my book. The leaders in the West are not much better, but at least the US doesn't invade Venezuela every time Putin gives them weapons... which is always.
Have they already redeployed the Black Sea Fleet to the Crimea? That was pretty bloody quick there Russia!
@Ardanis, everyone is welcome here, opinions that differ from the bulk are always stimulating for the mind!
I feel it's important to remember that everyone taking action in pretty much any situation always feels like they are justified. As far as furthering their own agenda goes, they most likely are justified. I don't know if Russia's approach is really the best they could have taken, but I can understand WHY they are doing it. To Putin, it makes sense and as far as he concerned, is perfectly justified. I can understand why he doesn't want to share a border with NATO members, his traditional enemy. Having the eastern nations as a buffer zone between him and NATO is how he wants it. . . As near as I can tell anyway.
@CaloNord I agree, but there is a point where "it is beneficial for my country" is insufficient justification for war.
The truly odd thing about foreign policy is all the shifts in alliances. I don't know if you guys remember this, but back when I was in high school and first took an interest in global affairs Putin was actually a close ally to the US and shared good relations with Bush. I think both nations having issues with terrorism brought them together. Then Bush did away with an older arms treaty, and then came the invasion of Georgia and Putin's restructuring of the provincial governments and move away from democracy.
Its crazy how easily alliances shift. One minute the US arms the Afghans, the next minute those arms shoot US troops. One minute Russia and China are at it, the next they have close relations. There is little consistency, and I always postulated that it was a consequence of democracy. As regimes change, so do the alliances they formed with other countries. For example, Bush and Clinton (with the exception of that horrible snafu with the embassy in Serbia) were developing close ties with China, but Obama is far less friendly with the PRC. From trade partnerships to trade wars in less than a generation.
Yea I remember that! If I recall didn't he ring Bush and ask if there was anything he could do?
I suppose it's also important to consider history and tradition. Russia has a long of history of strong rulers and dictators. Going back well before the Soviet Union. Even the better ones, Peter the Great and Catherine the Great come to mind, both had vicious streaks. Democracy is not a concept they are really used to I suppose. Just because we consider it insufficient doesn't mean they feel the same way.
How would the U.S. react if Mexico joined Russia's orbit? Allowed Russian troops to train in their territory? Build bases and station ships and aircraft there?
In my last comment, I made an argument of sorts FOR Utilitarianism over individual liberty. However it does not mean I am blind to the inherent flaws of trying to develop government policy purely driven by the calculus of maximizing net-utility. The boundaries are not very well defined and debate continues among utilitarians on how/where they should be set. For example, transferring water for water-rich southern China to the water-stressed Beijing region is probably okay for most utilitarians, but transferring so much of it that crops fail and famines break out in southern China, is obviously not, even if it somehow resulted in a "net-benefit" for China as a whole. Utilitarianism, like Communism and Democracy, are all just ideals. In reality government policy is guided by ideals, but shaped by realities.
Why should Scots share their oil and gas with the English? Why should the English bother to defend Scotland to help them keep their oil and gas?
the answers are fairly simple. You only need to examine examples like the US intervening on behalf of Kuwait in the early 90s to see why England would defend Scottish oil. You need only look at how >80% of Mexico's oil exports are to the United States to see why the Scotland would trade with England.
On this point... I don't think you can equate Scotland with Kuwait, and you'd be a bit naive if you feel the US intervened in Kuwait simply to protect the sovereignty of a small resource-rich nation threatened militarily by its larger neighbor. Also trade is not the same thing has sovereign control of natural resources. If Scotland was independent and somehow given full rights over North Sea oil and gas, the rest of the UK would technically have to import Scottish oil from international markets like everybody else. That's not the same as British companies developing British natural resources, primarily for the domestic market.
Also if you an ardent supporter of self-determination, as the rhetoric from the West seems to suggest, then you cannot pick and choose who you allow to self-determine (well you can and do, but then it's impossible to maintain your moral high ground), and you must accept the consequences of people with incomplete/imperfect information making decisions NOW that will affect the fortunes of generations to come.
For example if self-determination is an absolute human right, then Iraq and Ukraine should both be partitioned. West Ukraine should be allowed to join NATO and the EU. East Ukraine should be allowed to declare independence as Novorossiya or join the Russian Federation... but what about the 50/50 regions like Southern Ukraine (Mariupol)? Similarly in Iraq, the country should be partitioned into a Shia South, Sunni West/Middle and Kurdish North... but what about mixed Baghdad? It would be a sad state of affairs if neighbours are forced to move due to the breakdown of nation-states around the world and treat each other with antagonism where they once co-existed peacefully.
Just as realities undermine the merits of utilitarianism, so they also undermine the merits of liberty and self-determination. I haven't even mentioned how fluid public opinion can be and how susceptible they are to political/media manipulation, and how disruptive the breakdown of nation-states are to the international economy.
On this point... I don't think you can equate Scotland with Kuwait, and you'd be a bit naive if you feel the US intervened in Kuwait simply to protect the sovereignty of a small resource-rich nation threatened militarily by its larger neighbor.
I never said the US (and pretty much the entire West) intervened for the benefit of the Kuwaitis. In fact I said quite the opposite. The fact that they are oil rich is beneficial to nations seeking to trade with them, and are therefore inclined to come to their aid. The same way that I don't think you are naive enough to believe that the PRC wants control over Taiwan in order to aid them in case they suffer from a natural disaster.
I completely agree that government policies are determined through both idealism and reality (and by reality, we really mean necessity). This does not mean that governments are justified when they behave aggressively.
As far as trade is concerned, it is getting freer by the day, and nations now are more cooperative than ever before. It is a clear alternative to violating peoples' claims to self determination. Besides, what you say about the UK having control over Scottish oil and gas may be beneficial for the English... but the alternative might be more beneficial for people in Scotland. Should the US annex Venezuela then, since it would benefit more people if they had control over Venezuela's natural supply of oil?
As far as liberty/self-determination vs Utilitarianism, I think there is a HUGE key difference: following the ideals of liberty and self-determination is fairly instinctive. People know where to begin, what the goals are and what violates the right to self-rule. Utilitarianism require a LOT more information and difficult decision making, and when people get it wrong the consequences would not only be severe for themselves, but for others who were not given the chance to decide for themselves. Not to mention the fact that people usually promote maximizing utility when it benefits them, but almost never when the shoe is on the other foot. This is extra problematic when the major actor is a major world power (USA, PRC, UK, Russia) that really doesn't have to answer to anyone.
Of course, all ideologies must accommodate reality and bow to necessity. My argument is only that, when possible, I'd prefer people err on the side of liberty/self-rule than the alternative.
The US intervened in Kuwait for their own benefits. Until that point Saddam was a close ally of the USA, he even had the key to detroit. At that time Saddam was an oil producer for the US. The USA are destabilizing the whole area, by supplying radical sunnites (al-qaeda were radical sunnites for example), but also at the same time dictators, like mubarak (at least until he was overthrown). The saudis are still close allies of the US, even though they have a repressive monarchic regime. As long as the situation in the middle east remains chaotic, there is no threat of a united middle east. Guess what would happen, if the whole middle east would unite, controlling the largest known oil reservoirs.
So how do people think the Scottish referendum is going to go? Every other day it seems I read a paper where one side is winning in the polls, only to have it reverse the next day.
Though I have virtually nothing to back this up, I think Scotland will vote for independence but won't be allowed, and instead they'll stay a part of the UK.
So how do people think the Scottish referendum is going to go? Every other day it seems I read a paper where one side is winning in the polls, only to have it reverse the next day.
I think (hope) the No campaign will win by a narrow margin.
The No campaign has badly underestimated the possibility of a Yes victory. They failed to match the grassroots passion and energy of the Yes campaign. I lived in Scotland for 8 years and still have friends in Scotland. Apparently they have been approached more by Yes campaigners who go door to door to persuade people. In contrast, the No campaign pretty much just relied on posters, flyers, TV adverts etc until fairly recently.
The Yes campaign also has a massive psychological advantage in that people are almost always somewhat dissatisfied with their present circumstances and prefer a positive message of change over a negative message supporting the status quo. The Scottish Referendum is essential a choice between two messages.
"Vote Yes for Independence! We can take control of our own destiny and make everything better!"
"Vote No to preserve the Union. Life isn't perfect, but going it alone will be worse!"
The fact that one of those messages is more factually accurate than the other sadly does not seem to have the weight it should in making peoples' minds up.
Since the dawning realization of the very possible secession of Scotland and a victory for Yes, the No campaign is finally fighting back with positive rhetoric about "family of nations" as well as warning of the risks of independence.
I hope commonsense will prevail and Scotland will remain a part of the UK, which for all its flaws, truly is a special family of nations which British people ought to be more proud of.
Comments
*warning: your neighbors may posibbibly throw them back, or at least be unhappy with you afterwards. Also the erection of a 7' privacy fence can be expected. Meagloth is not responsible for any malfunctions or misuse resulting In Property damage, injury, or death. Do not throw molitovs inside an enclosed space, and keep away from eyes and ears. Do not eat. Product is a poisonous, flammable, explosive, corrosive choking hazard. Keep away from small children, pets, idiots, and individuals suffering from any kind of mental illness or instability. Please. I just beat up an army with just six, and I'm pretty sure cernd only counts as a half.
I know only Kuldahar Politics, Easthaven Politics and Dorn's Deep Politics. And for the very first time in my life I like Politics
Ahh Kuldahar. . . what a nice place to live. If those random invasion would stop.
Get a patent. "Meagloth's Miniature Mollys".
@Mathsorcerer Not a bad board at all.
I did have some things to bring up and I have now since forgotten them. Sucks getting old. . .
This was after Tony called Japan "Our closest friend in Asia." Which, as was pointed out, is a diplomatic no no.
There is an official State visit by Xi Jinping in November to discuss free trade, mutual defence and the war in the Middle East which should prove to be a very interesting visit. Tony might be a total ass but at least he's working on the relationship with China.
Clive Palmer really didn't help matters there, calling the Chinese government "Mongrels who murder their own people" on the TV show Q&A and later saying the armed forces needed to be enlarged to fight a communist invasion in the future.
In a related topic, the Chinese are apparently growing concerned at the number of Chinese fighters joining the Islamic State. China apparently has a Muslim minority, the Uighurs who have begun fighting in the Middle East. Along with a great many other nationalities, including Australians.
Australia has a vested interest in being on good terms with the Chinese, given how much we import and export to the Chinese.
But people have forgotten the cuba crises and "able archer"... that stuff should rang an alarm. Whatever they say on TV whatever. It´s a bankers war!
And seriously. No one in the bankers business or the other establishments care about me, you and you. They do whatever they can do fill their greedy pockets and expand their shitt* zion. The good bunkers are not for us. These people will burn the world if it means that they made their point!
I mean, I'm sure Heindrich would not agree, but people are upset with Putin trying to keep control over Ukraine... when the Chinese government has been pointing missiles in Taiwan's direction for decades now. The PRC's claim over Taiwan is almost analogous to Russia's claim over Ukraine.
but back to @Sergio 's comment.
I was against the war in Iraq, and am opposed to intervening in Ukraine. I too think the president is a complete hypocrite (that was the case from the moment he took office).
but I do find it hard to comprehend that someone who says things like is somehow all up in arms about the wars in the Middle East. Seriously, you seem to be taking one position that directly contradicts the other. Is it bad when the American government does it, but okay if yours does?I'd also like to point out that the Italian government was quickest to jump on board with the US during the invasion of Iraq after the British and the Australians... but I don't see you saying "Italians" (see how dumb it is to generalize about a people through mistakes their government made?) "do not understand a fuck but money". Are only Americans greedy?
I don't mean to sound defensive about my country, and considering I disagree with about 80% of the major foreign policy decisions made over here in the past decade, I think a lot of criticism is warranted. I also understand when a nation is the major actor in global affairs they need to be held to a higher standard than any other, for the sake of everyone. The hypocrisy in US foreign policy is pretty apparent, and you'd have to be blind to deny it.
But lets be fair, as much as I disliked Bush and Obama neither of them were Putin, and comparing them to him in this conflict is wrong. I'm normally not one to defend Obama, but he was certainly not the one who began the conflict in Ukraine, and in fact the EU implemented stricter sanctions on Russia than even the US did.
As far as the Ukraine goes, I think I see where Putin is coming from, the Russia's sacrificed SO much blood and treasure to hold/retake that patch of dirt, to just GIVE IT AWAY might be something of a sore point for an old KGB Colonel. Especially after watching the U.S. and it's allies intervene wherever they see fit for the past decade, the second he tries to do it, all hell breaks loose . . .
I feel the relationship between Islam and the west would require a major in depth discussion to understand the WHY of it. It goes back much further then recent history and there are very good reasons for it. A lot of Muslim children grow up with tales of western barbarity from the middle ages, it's no wonder they have an innate dislike of westerners. . .
I was trying to remember the name of a documentary series I watched ages ago that covered the relationship between the west and Islam over the centuries, was an absolutely fascinating piece. Written and produced largely by Muslims so it was great to get some exposure to the point of view of the 'other side' for once.
But its obviously not entirely the West's fault, as some would have us believe. This may not be politically correct, but by my personal standards the culture in the region is very backward. As the region (inevitably) modernizes, relations will improve. I just wish the US and the rest of the West would be a little more hesitant to intervene until then, because it has caused more problems than it has solved.
But yes, I agree it's not entirely our fault, by no means. But we can't just go strolling around anywhere we like stuffing democracy down other peoples throats. I know a few people that had been to Afghanistan, served there, met the locals and said a great many of them have no idea what democracy is even about. It's an alien concept to them and a great many of them don't give a crap. They are more worried about how to grow enough food or get enough work to feed their families. Who is in charge in some far away city is a moot point to them.
Honestly, how long do we expect these little fledgling democracies to hold up once western firepower has gone home?
Utilitarianism essentially argues that the primary objective of society should be to maximise the net benefit for the members of that society, which does not sound unreasonable or morally wrong... Yet it is inherently contradictory to the ideals of liberty and self-determination. Utilitarianism cannot work without a degree of coercion, redistribution of wealth and resources, which naturally infringes upon the liberty of individuals.
Yet unless you are an ardent anarchist, most people would accept that the emergence of society and the development of nation states has been a net-benefit to humanity. Civilisations arose out of utilitarian principles because it made rational sense for the majority of people to participate in society rather than live outside of it. For example, most ancient civilisations arose in river valleys where the rivers provide agricultural abundance to support dense populations, but was also prone to cause catastrophic flooding. Thus it made sense for tribes, villages and towns to band together for water management projects, distribution of resources etc...
These principles apply in the 21st Century too. In 2008 Sichuan Province was hit by a devastating earthquake that killed 80,000 people and left 5-10 million homeless. For all of the Chinese government's faults, and questions about the quality of public buildings like schools etc, the response to the disaster was impressive and praised both within China and internationally. If Sichuan Province (population 80 million) was an independent country, could it have responded to such a disaster as efficiently, decisively and effectively as the massive relief effort conducted by a central government organising the efforts of a country of 1,300 million? What if the worst affected region was a small independent country in its own right (5-10 million is bigger than all of Scotland). How can the country even hope to recover when it is essentially destroyed outright by the disaster?
"But local countries and the international community should come to the aid of their fellow human beings!". Yes... and they do to an extent, but sadly that is not how the world works. Nations only REALLY make an effort for their own citizens. If you want a modern example of how a small country can really struggle with the effects of a catastrophic event, you only need to look to the Haiti earthquake of 2010, and compare the recovery of Sichuan and the continued suffering in Haiti, despite the very visible presence of charities operating in Haiti.
Essentially, because Haiti is not part of a large, rich and powerful country, relief efforts for Haiti has had to rely upon the generosity and choice of others. Because Sichuan is a part of China, and Wenchuan (the region worst hit by the earthquake) is a part of Sichuan, then the citizens of the rest of China are obligated/coerced by their tacit participation in Chinese society, to respond to a disaster thousands of miles away, even if it infringes upon their liberty to not contribute to a relief effort to help people they do not know and will never meet.
This central conflict between liberty and utility feels extremely relevant in the UK at present because it is at the heart of the debate on the Scottish Referendum. The West regularly espouses self-determination as an in-alienable human right and a good thing to aspire for (some take it more seriously than others). That maybe true to an extent, but if everybody exercised their right to self-determine, then countries and societies will break down into small local units, petty tribalism and the family unit. Why should Scots share their oil and gas with the English? Why should the English bother to defend Scotland to help them keep their oil and gas? Why should Londoners pay a disproportionate amount of tax to subsidise poorer regions of the UK? Why should the North of England accept laws written by a Conservative government they did not vote for? If localism, selfish petty tribalism and short-sightedness takes over, then society ceases to function as a whole.
Also, I don't think response to natural disaster is a valid reason for disregarding the principles of self-determination, and I especially don't see its application to the Taiwan/Haiti comparison. I mean, if the United States government decided to mount a huge organized aid effort for Haiti following the earthquake, that would not justify the US annexing it! I'm sure Haitians would value their independence enough to not seek to sacrifice their sovereignty the moment they have a natural disaster.
Independent nations will always have a cause for cooperation, because it is usually mutually beneficial. The US and Canada are both independent, and the two wealthiest nations in Western Hemisphere, yet also enjoy next to perfect relations (as good as any other two nations in the world). The EU, for all its faults and recent unpopularity, is a sign that mutually beneficial cooperation can exist without sacrificing sovereignty and the right to self-determination.
When it comes to your question, that if there was no forced unity the answers are fairly simple. You only need to examine examples like the US intervening on behalf of Kuwait in the early 90s to see why England would defend Scottish oil. You need only look at how >80% of Mexico's oil exports are to the United States to see why the Scotland would trade with England.
I think another thing that you fail to consider is how forced unification does not always quell what you call "petty tribalism". You need only to look at the historical divide between India and Pakistan, Korea in the 1950s or any nation in the Middle East in the post-colonial era to see this. A Kurd in Iraq or a Kosovar Albanian in the 90s might not agree about the utilitarian benefits of forced integration and instead see only mob rule. Forced nationhood does not end tribalism.
I personally don't see the problem with the "small units" that you fear nations would break down to. For one, I don't think it is nearly as extreme as you make it out to be. I mean, if Sichuan was independent it would be the size of Germany. I have a great deal of faith that Germany can care for itself. I see more independence as a way for varying cultures and philosophies to thrive separately, without clashing. A Serb can go to church, a Bosnian can go to mosque. Poles can be Catholic, Estonians Protestant. The Germans can drink beer, the French can drink wine. The US is actually based off of such a system, and states are given a great deal of autonomy with few issues in the past 150 years.
Finally, in regards to China and Taiwan, I think there is a big difference you fail to recognize. The majority of people in the Sichuan Province are most likely quite happy to be a part of the PRC. In Taiwan, however, most would prefer independence over unification (though a majority, if given the option, would actually like the status quo). The "greatest benefit for the greatest number" has to understand that "good" is subjective, and what some may find beneficial, others may not. It is not an easy thing to decide for another what is "good" for them, since their idea of what is beneficial might not be the same as yours. I'd sum it up by saying that it is extremely difficult for someone to define something, on a global scale, as being "for the greater good". This is why I get a little nervous when people justify very broad, sweeping actions or policies with this kind of reasoning... what if they are wrong?
The entire reason for the conflict was because many in Ukraine were demanding closer relations with Europe and NATO.
As I said, I am mostly against a military action over this issue, but I also disagree with the portrayal of NATO as the aggressors, since that is simply not the case I don't like Putin because of his aggression toward post-Soviet states and also because of the regression of Russia back toward totalitarian rule following his coming to power.
I also find it odd that you, while being critical (rightfully so) of the past two US presidents for involving themselves in the Middle East and Ukraine, seem to ignore the fact that Putin has been equally active. He has a bigger footprint on the Ukrainian conflict than Obama can ever hope to have, and you seem to forget his involvement in backing Assad in Syria. I was not at all referring to the crusades, but to the French and British Mandates and the post-WWI era as well as recent activity by the US.
The military bases I was referring to were certainly not established by Richard the Lionheart!!!!!
Georgia wants to join NATO - Georgia ends up with disputed borders - goodbye NATO.
Ukraine wants to join NATO - Ukraine ends up with disputed borders - goodbye NATO.
What you call aggression towards post-Soviet states is a mere counter operation in grand strategy to prevent NATO's expansion to the east, something it has been steadily doing since the decay of USSR. After having witnessed NATO's actions in the Middle East over the last two decades - and especially the outcome of those operations, - I can hardly blame Putin for not wanting NATO bases circling the borders of his resource-rich country.
Perhaps there is a reason they want to join NATO... its not like Putin has bases in Georgia or Ukraine (or the Middle East)
In all seriousness, saying "oh it is a counter measure" is what literally every side of every conflict does. Its like when you were a kid and you fight with your brother and you both say "he started it".
The facts are simple: the minute any former Soviet state exercises its independence against the will of Moscow, Putin puts his fist down and proceeds with military action. Certainly not the sign of a great leader in my book. The leaders in the West are not much better, but at least the US doesn't invade Venezuela every time Putin gives them weapons... which is always.
@Ardanis, everyone is welcome here, opinions that differ from the bulk are always stimulating for the mind!
I feel it's important to remember that everyone taking action in pretty much any situation always feels like they are justified. As far as furthering their own agenda goes, they most likely are justified. I don't know if Russia's approach is really the best they could have taken, but I can understand WHY they are doing it. To Putin, it makes sense and as far as he concerned, is perfectly justified. I can understand why he doesn't want to share a border with NATO members, his traditional enemy. Having the eastern nations as a buffer zone between him and NATO is how he wants it. . . As near as I can tell anyway.
The truly odd thing about foreign policy is all the shifts in alliances. I don't know if you guys remember this, but back when I was in high school and first took an interest in global affairs Putin was actually a close ally to the US and shared good relations with Bush. I think both nations having issues with terrorism brought them together. Then Bush did away with an older arms treaty, and then came the invasion of Georgia and Putin's restructuring of the provincial governments and move away from democracy.
Foreign Policy actually did a piece on the Bush-Putin relationship a few months back http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/11/05/the_seduction_of_george_w_bush_by_vladimir_putin
Its crazy how easily alliances shift. One minute the US arms the Afghans, the next minute those arms shoot US troops. One minute Russia and China are at it, the next they have close relations. There is little consistency, and I always postulated that it was a consequence of democracy. As regimes change, so do the alliances they formed with other countries. For example, Bush and Clinton (with the exception of that horrible snafu with the embassy in Serbia) were developing close ties with China, but Obama is far less friendly with the PRC. From trade partnerships to trade wars in less than a generation.
I suppose it's also important to consider history and tradition. Russia has a long of history of strong rulers and dictators. Going back well before the Soviet Union. Even the better ones, Peter the Great and Catherine the Great come to mind, both had vicious streaks. Democracy is not a concept they are really used to I suppose. Just because we consider it insufficient doesn't mean they feel the same way.
How would the U.S. react if Mexico joined Russia's orbit? Allowed Russian troops to train in their territory? Build bases and station ships and aircraft there?
In my last comment, I made an argument of sorts FOR Utilitarianism over individual liberty. However it does not mean I am blind to the inherent flaws of trying to develop government policy purely driven by the calculus of maximizing net-utility. The boundaries are not very well defined and debate continues among utilitarians on how/where they should be set. For example, transferring water for water-rich southern China to the water-stressed Beijing region is probably okay for most utilitarians, but transferring so much of it that crops fail and famines break out in southern China, is obviously not, even if it somehow resulted in a "net-benefit" for China as a whole. Utilitarianism, like Communism and Democracy, are all just ideals. In reality government policy is guided by ideals, but shaped by realities. On this point... I don't think you can equate Scotland with Kuwait, and you'd be a bit naive if you feel the US intervened in Kuwait simply to protect the sovereignty of a small resource-rich nation threatened militarily by its larger neighbor. Also trade is not the same thing has sovereign control of natural resources. If Scotland was independent and somehow given full rights over North Sea oil and gas, the rest of the UK would technically have to import Scottish oil from international markets like everybody else. That's not the same as British companies developing British natural resources, primarily for the domestic market.
Also if you an ardent supporter of self-determination, as the rhetoric from the West seems to suggest, then you cannot pick and choose who you allow to self-determine (well you can and do, but then it's impossible to maintain your moral high ground), and you must accept the consequences of people with incomplete/imperfect information making decisions NOW that will affect the fortunes of generations to come.
For example if self-determination is an absolute human right, then Iraq and Ukraine should both be partitioned. West Ukraine should be allowed to join NATO and the EU. East Ukraine should be allowed to declare independence as Novorossiya or join the Russian Federation... but what about the 50/50 regions like Southern Ukraine (Mariupol)? Similarly in Iraq, the country should be partitioned into a Shia South, Sunni West/Middle and Kurdish North... but what about mixed Baghdad? It would be a sad state of affairs if neighbours are forced to move due to the breakdown of nation-states around the world and treat each other with antagonism where they once co-existed peacefully.
Just as realities undermine the merits of utilitarianism, so they also undermine the merits of liberty and self-determination. I haven't even mentioned how fluid public opinion can be and how susceptible they are to political/media manipulation, and how disruptive the breakdown of nation-states are to the international economy.
I completely agree that government policies are determined through both idealism and reality (and by reality, we really mean necessity). This does not mean that governments are justified when they behave aggressively.
As far as trade is concerned, it is getting freer by the day, and nations now are more cooperative than ever before. It is a clear alternative to violating peoples' claims to self determination. Besides, what you say about the UK having control over Scottish oil and gas may be beneficial for the English... but the alternative might be more beneficial for people in Scotland. Should the US annex Venezuela then, since it would benefit more people if they had control over Venezuela's natural supply of oil?
As far as liberty/self-determination vs Utilitarianism, I think there is a HUGE key difference: following the ideals of liberty and self-determination is fairly instinctive. People know where to begin, what the goals are and what violates the right to self-rule. Utilitarianism require a LOT more information and difficult decision making, and when people get it wrong the consequences would not only be severe for themselves, but for others who were not given the chance to decide for themselves. Not to mention the fact that people usually promote maximizing utility when it benefits them, but almost never when the shoe is on the other foot. This is extra problematic when the major actor is a major world power (USA, PRC, UK, Russia) that really doesn't have to answer to anyone.
Of course, all ideologies must accommodate reality and bow to necessity. My argument is only that, when possible, I'd prefer people err on the side of liberty/self-rule than the alternative.
The USA are destabilizing the whole area, by supplying radical sunnites (al-qaeda were radical sunnites for example), but also at the same time dictators, like mubarak (at least until he was overthrown). The saudis are still close allies of the US, even though they have a repressive monarchic regime.
As long as the situation in the middle east remains chaotic, there is no threat of a united middle east. Guess what would happen, if the whole middle east would unite, controlling the largest known oil reservoirs.
http://yle.fi/uutiset/yle_stunt_tests_russias_reaction_to_tom_of_finland_stamps/7461347
@bengoshi
I think (hope) the No campaign will win by a narrow margin.
The No campaign has badly underestimated the possibility of a Yes victory. They failed to match the grassroots passion and energy of the Yes campaign. I lived in Scotland for 8 years and still have friends in Scotland. Apparently they have been approached more by Yes campaigners who go door to door to persuade people. In contrast, the No campaign pretty much just relied on posters, flyers, TV adverts etc until fairly recently.
The Yes campaign also has a massive psychological advantage in that people are almost always somewhat dissatisfied with their present circumstances and prefer a positive message of change over a negative message supporting the status quo. The Scottish Referendum is essential a choice between two messages.
"Vote Yes for Independence! We can take control of our own destiny and make everything better!"
"Vote No to preserve the Union. Life isn't perfect, but going it alone will be worse!"
The fact that one of those messages is more factually accurate than the other sadly does not seem to have the weight it should in making peoples' minds up.
Since the dawning realization of the very possible secession of Scotland and a victory for Yes, the No campaign is finally fighting back with positive rhetoric about "family of nations" as well as warning of the risks of independence.
I hope commonsense will prevail and Scotland will remain a part of the UK, which for all its flaws, truly is a special family of nations which British people ought to be more proud of.